Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 06:22:44 07/31/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 1998 at 08:59:15, blass uri wrote: > >On July 31, 1998 at 08:01:44, Komputer Korner wrote: > >>On July 30, 1998 at 10:14:15, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On July 30, 1998 at 09:21:19, Komputer Korner wrote: >>> >>>>On July 29, 1998 at 15:33:14, Howard Exner wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 29, 1998 at 08:34:35, Komputer Korner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 29, 1998 at 08:01:15, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Jeroen, you need Knut Neven's GIGANTIC BASE of 1.3 million games with less >>>>>>>>than 4/10 ths of 1 % doubles. It has 3 games of 11.d5 It is hellishly complicated >>>>>>>>but 11.d5 looks very good for white. It seems as if Anand did not properly >>>>>>>>prepare for Rebel 10. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Jeroen doesn't work that way. He prefers to do it the hard way by typing move >>>>>>>by move to the Rebel book instead of extracting an opening book from a large >>>>>>>database. This because the result is simply better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Super GM's still do not have the proper respectfor micros! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>How do you know? >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The super GMs know that the micros have't done the opening homework. This is >>>>>>because the micros can't as of yet. There is no automated opening prep in the >>>>>>micro coding. Thus Jeroen has to do it all. Since Jeroen is not a GM or strong >>>>>>IM, he can't do as good a job as a player like Anand. >>>>> >>>>>Opening prep is not the equivalent of playing an over the board game. >>>>>Given adequate time and resources a strong player like Jeroen is capable >>>>>of unravelling complex opening systems as well as other chess positions. >>>>>Think for a moment about correspondence chess players and the deep >>>>>games they come up with. More than a few opening discoveries have been >>>>>attributted to correspondence games. Should they be rejected because of >>>>>a non-GM over the board rating? >>>>> >>>>>Does Anand do all of his opening prep himself or does he share >>>>>this task with his seconds? >>>>> >>>>>Today Jeroen and anyone owning today's software can utilize these >>>>>programs to see more deeply into games. We punch in a series of moves, use >>>>>takeback, keep notes. Even I had the audacity to post awhile back that in >>>>>game #7 Anand's 24th move, Bd2 should be reconsidered as not possibly >>>>>best here. Instead I suggested Bg4, followed by a plan of putting >>>>>the dark squared bishop on b2 and his remaining rook on g1 as a plan >>>>>that might cause Rebel 10 more difficulty. >>>> >>>>You are forgetting that the GMs use the same tools that you do. Kasparov has 2 >>>>notebooks ( maybe more by now) running chess programs 24 hours a day searching >>>>for novelties and a team of assistants to give him the results of their >>>>analyzing. The world correspondence champion has an over the board (OTB) rating >>>>of 2345 FIDE. I watched him play in the recent Canadian Open Championship (OTB >>>>play). He is definitely no Kasparov. I have also watched other correspondence >>>>GMs play OTB chess. They are definitely not at the level of real OTB GMs. So >>>>given the same amount of time to prepare openings with the same tools (chess >>>>programs), which person would you hire as your openings prep person, Anand or >>>>Noomen? >>> >>>I do not know which person to hire >>>A person can be better than anand in the ability to analyze positions and not >>>be a grandmaster because (s)he cannot imagine the final position in a real game. >>>It is important to have a very good memory in a practical game over the board >>>and not only to know how to think. >>> >>> >>>The only way to know which person to hire is to do a competition in >>>correspondence chess between the best correspondence players and kasparov or >>>anand but we need sponsors to pay money for kasparov or anand >>>otherwise they will not play. >>> >>>Uri >>> >>>> I am in no way judging Jeroen's competence. He probably is worth the >>>>money that Ed is paying him. However you won't convince any reader of this club >>>>that he can prepare openings as well as Anand or any other GM for that matter. >>>>I rest my case your honour. >>>>-- >>>>Komputer Korner >> >>We are finding out these days as more and more OTB GM's are playing >>correspondence chess. A prime example is the British IM Johnathan Penrose and >>postal GM who once defeated Tal in an OTB game. He is now an old man and yet he >>has been at the top of the correspondence rating list for the last couple of >>years. Other OTB GMs are doing quite well at correspondence of course. Memory >>and intelligence do not have a 100% correlation, but when it comes to the like >>of Kasparov,Karpov and Anand, they are the best players period. Trying to >>compete with them is a losing battle (correspondence chess or not). Don't fool >>yourself into thinking that the top postal players could match the top OTB GMs >>at either opening theory, correspondence play or analyzing. The super GMs are on >>another level. > >I cannot be sure about that before I will see the super GM's beat the best >postal players in correspondence chess. > >Theoretically it is possible the best postal players are better than the super >GM's >I do not know what is the practical situation. > >Over the board game and correspondence games are different games > >This is the same as playing over the board and playing without to see >the board are different games. > >I know there are humans who can play without seeing the board(I cannot) >but I am clearly better than them in over the board game. > >Uri >>-- >>Komputer Korner I know a certain Canadian postal GM who has played in the OTB Canadian Closed Championship and his positional knowledge was way below the IMs that were playing in that Canadian Championship. Why isn't the example of Johnathan Penrose good enough to support my argument? Penrose did beat Tal in a single game but no way was he ever good enough to compete at the highest levels at OTB play.If he can take up postal play and rise to the top at a very advanced age, are you arguing that Penrose has some unique talents at postal that Super GMs wouldn't have? Postal GMs produce their amazing games with near exhaustive search (and there is some cheating on time controls and help with computers, helped along with slow postal systems by the way). Give a super OTB GM the same amount of exhaustive search in his postal games ( assuming he has nothing else to do except play postal chess) and they will come up with far deeper concepts and brillancies that are available now. Ask any postal GM about his understanding of chess compared to Kasparov, Karpov and Anand and he will admit that he is not worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence. I can give you example after example of a postal GM who does not have the same understanding of chess as a super GM. Sure you learn lots of things at postal play but Super OTB GMs are a different animal. -- Komputer Korner
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.